Only in the Straight Dope can we get the proper balance of established facts to reduce our paranoia, and leading-edge science to get it back up there again.
Let us not forget that the reason most experts dismiss concerns about microwave ovens out of hand is because of goofy, pseudoscientific articles reporting that microwave ovens caused a “breakdown of the human ‘life-energy field’” observed by unnamed Soviet researchers in an unspecified study. If you want to discredit an entire field of study, there’s probably no better way than to publish “the dog ate my research” pieces like these.
For a balanced and well-researched report, try this recent article by the Center for Science in the Public Interest – a group not inclined to suck up to industry, by the way.
I also think Cecil might have comforted Norm that his friends were in fact gibbering. Even if there should eventually prove to be some detectable “microwave effect” - they certainly don’t know it now. Given the millions of microwave users living full and normal lifespans, for them to forego the advantages of the technology for an ill-defined and unsubstantiated fear shows a defect of judgement.
To be honest, I don’t think Cecil said much of anything to quell the fears of the questioner.
Anyway, I understood the way that microwave oven work is that the microwave frequency they put out resonates with the water molecule, thereby causing it to vibrate more earnestly and heating up whatever substance contains or is in contact with water molecules. Ever try microwaving a ceramic dish?
As well, the microwaves are supposed to be contained by the oven and only puts outside water molecules in danger if there is a leak.
As for miscrowaves in cell phones, well that’s not the same frequency, otherwise people would notice how hot their ear would get.
I don’t have a cite. I think I learned this in Physics class.
Anyone care to chime in?
I think what Cecil was saying was not that microwave ovens pose a direct danger to humans, or turn food into poison, but rather that an as-yet-unknown-but-still-plausible microwave effect might lower foods nutritional value. This is what the questioner was asking anyway. Thus, per Mr. Griffin’s point, microwave oven users might still live long healthy lives, they just might–repeat might–have been longer and healthier without microwaved food.
You’re correct that that cell phones are at a different frequency. However, some cordless phones, wireless internet and bluetooth are at the same frequency. Take a wireless laptop and turn the microwave on and see how well it works. They don’t heat your ear up (noticibly) because they don’t have enough intensity.
The frequency of your cell phone is a microwave as it is defined. It’s just not the same frequency that a microwave oven uses. It doesn’t have to be at the same frequency to be bad for you. It’s still transmitting RF energy right into your head.
Bolding is mine. I thought this, too, about Cecil’s article. It sound’s almost childishly easy to set up a test for something like this. Prepare the same type of food in two different ways, traditional heat cooking and microwave cooking. Compare the nutritional value of the two dishes. Is there any significant difference? Since microwaves oven vary in their intensity, use a variety of them and average the results. Do the same with a typical stove. If there is any difference between food cooked by traditional methods compared with food cooked by microwaves, it ought to show up. Otherwise, this is another Luddite style urban legend.
It’s not really a resonnance, its just that the molecules vibrate. If it were a resonnance, microwave ovens would only work at a very specific frequency. Actually, a microwave oven could work over a fairly wide range of frequencies, they just picked the one that they use because it didn’t interfere with other equipment at the time.
It’s power levels, not frequency, that is the determining factor here. The maximum safe level that your cell phone can use to transmit is in fact based on how much the phone is allowed to heat up your head.
Microwave ovens use a frequency of 2.4 GHz. You can buy many cordless phones that also use 2.4 GHz. A microwave oven is going to put out around a thousand watts or more of power. A cordless phone, by comparison, is going to put out less than 5 watts of power, most of which is going to radiate away from your head. Less than a watt goes into heating up your brain.
I actually did read an article once where some folks performed this exact test (again I have no cite. Am I lying? Who can tell). Indeed the article claimed that microwaving food lowered the nutritional value. Something like microwaved broccolli only had 10% of its vitamin C remaining, while steaming it over the stove reduced it by 40%. Raw was, of course, best. The numbers I made up, but they give the idea of how apparently harmful nuking your food is.
My question is how would the microwave theoretically do this? I had heard before that when you boil vegetables you throw out much of the nutrients in the water. But provided there is no water being thrown out from the microwave heating, how would the nutrients disappear? Destroyed vitamin molecules?
Actually, from if you read the Center for the Science in the public interest report linked above, you’ll note that they mentioned the broccoli cooking experiment. Evidently the researchers cooked the broccoli in a lot of water, and cooked the bejeezus out of it as well. According to the article, if you use little or no water and don’t cook it for a long time, then it won’t destroy those vitamins.
Do you have a cite that lifespan has increased significantly in the years since microwave ovens were invented? That seems an awfully short span to see an effect on lifespan, especially since human lifespan is up in the 70s. Nobody who grew up with a microwave in the house has yet reached an age where they would be expected to die of old age.
I don’t disbelieve you about the article, but I’d like to see a citation for it, if possible. As for what causes the nutrients to deteriorate, I’d guess it might be the heating produced by the microwaves rather than some mysterious microwave effect. I would guess it’s the rapid, uniform heating in food that does it. The slower, “from the bottom up” heating of food by conventional methods probably doesn’t destroy the nutrients as quickly. That’s my guess.
This lists average lifespans, according to year of birth, as follows:
Men
1900 46
1950 65
1980 70
1998 73.4
2050 78.1
Women
1900 48
1950 71
1980 77
1998 79.4
2050 82.8
Microwave ovens didn’t start showing up in people’s houses until the late 1970’s. The increases to lifespan have been fairly modest since then. I don’t think you can honestly say that lifespans have increased significantly since the 1970’s.
(I’m kinda wondering how they arrived at a number for the year 2050)
OK, the 1900 figures I might accept. They look suspiciously low, but the data at least exists. But how can anyone possibly say that the average lifespan for those born in 1950 is 65 or 71 years? Much less the lifespan of people born in 2050. Any such figures must already be assuming some model for human lifespans, which makes them completely useless for testing whether particular factors are significant in determining lifespan.
Mind you, even if there were a correlation (or anticorrelation) between microwave usage and lifespan or any other measure of health, it still wouldn’t adress the question at hand. The rise of microwaves has been strongly associated with a rise in convenience foods such as frozen pizzas and TV dinners, and it’s no secret that convenience foods are significantly different in nutritional content from conventional foods. The question at hand is whether there is a nutritional difference between foods cooked in a microwave and via conventional methods, given the same starting ingredients in the same proportions.
Say what? Cecil, my good man, the radio waves are not rattling the window. Sound waves are doing the rattling and the source of the signal the boom box amplifies is irrelevant. There is no amplifier between the microwave emitter and the molecules being disrupted.
I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, that the sound from a boom box can cause motion in a material whose harmonic frequency is the same, but maybe you’d like to rephrase it.
What he means is that the boom box picks up on and amplifies the radio wave signal. It’s conceivable that there might be some structure in a human body or a foodstuff or whatever that might be analogous to an antenna, and therefore be sensitive to radio waves.